pt40fathoms:
Have you any evidence to back up your claim that DAN has denied an insurance claim for medical treatment of a diver, who has the proper level of insurance for the dive that was being conducted when the injury was made. This is what you are claiming in your statement, that they will slime the individual and in fact have done so. I would be very interested to read the proof of this very serious allegation.
I am making no such statement and if you're unable to parse the language that's not my issue to resolve. It is yours.
I
am making the statement that all indications are that DAN attempted to deny a legitimate
equipment insurance claim that appears, under the terms of the policy
they sold under their name, was in fact covered at the time of the loss,
and only changed their mind and actually conformed to what they sold this customer when public pressure FORCED them to do so.
I have no information that they have done such a thing for any medical claim.
However, I remain troubled that they attempted it for
any insurance that they sold.
Your complaint is like saying that if I buy a car and home policy from someone company, and they try to wrongly deny a claim on my car policy, that I should have no concern that a future claim on my homeowners policy will not also be wrongly denied.
That's pure horsehockey.
The issue is one of credibility. Either the company stands on the wording of their policy and the terms of their contracts, and upholds their obligations,
or they do not.
There is no middle ground on things like this.
If I offer you three contracts, you bind all three with me, and then I reneg on one of them, you are quite justified in being concerned about whether I will attempt to reneg on the other two!
I've already established my intent; for you to rely on the performance of the other two outstanding contracts would be somewhat north of insane, in my opinion.
Your approach to this is precisely WHY companies do this kind of thing. They believe, and it appears justifyably so, that they will not be held to account across their entire product and service line on the basis of their actions in any specific instance.
This sort of nonsense will
only stop when those companies that do something like this are viewed as willing to do it in
all future instances, until and unless they take some kind of positive, public action to address the root of the issue.
It is only the force of the marketplace - the risk of their entire customer base evaporating - that makes such a decision unpalatable.
You want to see this kind of thing go away, then you must consider any attempt to abrogate a legitimate contract to reflect on the organization as a whole, and every
other contract they have bound, until
proven otherwise.
